Just my two cents without having played with the rule change. I like because it streamlines the rules a bit more. There is no need for a difference in rules in regards to contested vs. controlled. Also… from what I have played, it appears that the Central powers have trouble enough as it is, and Russia is no piece of cake to beat. This could serve to make Russia more cautious about advancing, helping the central powers advance as Russia hangs back.
Latest posts made by The Fire Knight
-
RE: Possible Rules Change
-
RE: Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread
Thanks Krieghund. Another Query… can France transport troops into albania and activate the italians there? Or does it have to be Italy?
Also, can fighters take off from transports and fly? or once they’re on transports do they have to land just like any other land unit?
-
RE: Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread
Very excited for this game… found out about it just two weeks ago, and should have my game by friday. 2 quick and 1 kind of complicated questions first though…
1. Naval Bases belong to sea zones and territories, not just territories, correct? Ex., France cannot build sea units in zone 8 and 15, but only in zone 15?
2. For amphibious assaults, artillery firing at landing units are first strikes, however battleships are not? Seems odd…
3. Scenario: Germany owns Belgium and France owns Picardy. Neither are contested, and Germany has 2 transports loaded with 4 infantry in sea zone 9, while France has 4 artillery and 1 infantry in Picardy. Can Germany, on its turn, send 10 artillery into Picardy from Belgium, along with the 4 infantry from the sea, and bank on their being at least 1 infantry that survives the artillery bombardment? If so, what happens if they all die? Do the artillery have to retreat? If this tactic is illegal, what if France only had 3 artillery in Picardy, guaranteeing that at least one infantry would make it to shore. Is it legal then?
-
RE: Epic
I agree. However, you spelled could wrong, which I find highly offensive. You have been reported.
-
RE: Who thinks there should be an official Atomic Bomb rule????
Ideally I think that the Atomic Bomb should be a special and advanced hard to get technology. But not going to worry about it too much since we don’t even have normal technology right now
-
RE: How likely should Sealion be?
You have lost your mind. Just look at the figures for the number of aircraft built in 1940. UK built MORE than Germany built. How in the world can a sealion happen when you cant control the english channel? You might be lucky enough to get one huge push of men onto the soil of UK. Maybe 100,000 men and that is being really REALLY fair. The brits would easily be able to push this back. The US had the best amphibious techknology in the world by the end of the war and even they had a really hard time putting tanks on the the battle right out of the amphibious asault. Just look at D-Day and how many tanks never made it to the beaches. So lets say Germany could get 100,000 men on the land. How does Germany intend to resupply these men? How do these men take out tanks that the British have, but obviously the Germans couldn’t get very many onto British soil. I don’t see how you can sit their with your 7th grade knowledge of History and school someone who has their bachelors in history and is working on getting a Masters in Military history. Sea Lion is a joke to any real military historian. We know it just wasn’t possible baring EXTREME luck by Germany. If at anytime the British thought they might be invaded for real, like they saw Germany’s navy massing for a landing somwhere on British soil, then The british would have retreated their entire navy to outside of the Island of UK and would have done anything possible to keep the Germans out of their land. The British navy, at the time, was HUGE. 16 battleships and scores of destroyers and 6 aircraft carriers…. They also had the advantage of defense on their side. Please explain to me how sea lion was even a possibility in 1940 or even 1941 for that matter. How could they get naval and air dominance. Please don’t think I believe that all they needed was air dominance, because if it came down to it UK would have made sure the Germans only got one landing off before their navy came in in HUGE numbers and crushed the second or even first landing force. While the men landing would have a hell of a time on the beaches with the British being on defense. Rememeber over 300,000 men were evacuated from dunkirk, so the British still had defenses in place.
I agreed with a lot of what Gargantua wrote, and would like to add a few more things. To start, I think you’re looking at this the wrong way: Britain’s point of view. But Britain doesn’t get to set up Germany’s attack. Germany picks how the battle plays out, not Britain. Their are countless examples throughout history of two sides fighting, and one going on the offensive and doing the unexpected to great success, even defeating “superior” forces. How about Hannibal, Washington crossing the Delaware at Trenton, Midway, and yes, the rout of France. Just b/c you can point out 1,000 reasons why the light bulb won’t turn on doesn’t mean that Germany wouldn’t have found a way given enough time. Any “real military historian” wouldn’t be naive enough to have studied all of the great upsets in the history of the world and still have the arrogance to label a feasible operation as having only a 5% chance of success. At least my “7th grade knowledge of history” has taught me that. Add to that the fact that we are not trying to completely accurately represent how the war would have turned out… We are trying to accurately represent how the war might have turned out if the axis was given a slight boost in all arenas.
-
RE: How likely should Sealion be?
That would be less than 5% than probably. They needed to have naval dominance, or a hugely supperior air force. They had neither, and thus sea lion was a pipe dream.
No. Sorry. This is just not true. Before even the Battle of Britain, Hitler had some generals that believe that Sea Lion should be put into effect rather than the air war over Britain. If Hitler had not invaded Russia, and the United States of America had not entered the war (both of which can happen in this game until round 4 (2 entire years)) then the entire European axis would have had all the time in the world to prepare for Sea Lion. They had superior technology. They vastly outnumbered the British. And had they devoted everything they had towards defeating Britain, along with using what they had smarter (taking out radar stations and airfields instead of making the same mistake they would make at Stalingrad by bombing buildings over and over again) it would have most likely happened, and succeeded. Air, not sea, was proven to be dominant in World War Two for the first time. The Luftwaffe could have, given two years time and combined with the significant (although not as much as the British) Kriegsmarine and good planning, protected transports for enough time for the vastly superior Germany army to cross the channel and destroy Britain just like they did France. So, now you know, and you won’t embarrass yourself again with your ridiculous 5% Sea Lion chance comments. Sea Lion was not only possible, it was probable. But Hitler f’d it up when he thought it would be a good idea to make 2 enemies out of one, and then Japan thought it would make even more sense to make 3 enemies out of 2.
-
RE: Alpha 3, sealion dead? I dont think so.
This looks like it was written by a 4 year old.
An wa wong wif fo yer ols ya prejudiced jerk?
-
RE: Too many stickies
There was a sticky with Holkann’s high def map of the G40 board.
Is there a place where i can find it or it has just been deleted ?
Yea, that was the one and only sticky i used. Referenced it whenever people were talking about specific sea zones and such.
-
RE: Too many stickies
please sticky this thread, so that we can all have easy access to it for reference.